The Porky Pint Ltd v Stockton on Tees Borough Council

The licensing objectives in section 4(2) of the Licensing Act 2003 are not confined to alcohol-related matters. “Public safety” is distinct from “public health”, but the objectives may overlap; circumstances involving communicable disease may therefore engage public safety. A licensing appeal court may take account of conduct which has not resulted in criminal prosecution. Temporary Covid restrictions controlling use of licensed premises did not deprive the licensee of property under Article 1 of Protocol 1. A licence condition requiring CCTV production required disclosure within a reasonable time; serious crime qualified urgency, not the basic obligation.

The appellant operated a public house whose premises licence was revoked after repeated opening and on-premises alcohol sales during Covid-related restrictions, together with refusal to provide CCTV. The licensing committee relied principally on the prevention of crime and disorder and public safety objectives. A District Judge dismissed the appellant’s statutory appeal.

The High Court considered three questions of law under section 111 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980: whether public-health circumstances could be relevant to the licensing objectives; whether unprosecuted conduct could be considered; and whether the licence required CCTV to be supplied on request.

1. Disposition. The appeal was dismissed. The three questions in the stated case were answered “yes”. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s appeal costs of £4,650 and the previously assessed costs of £6,275.
2. Licensing objectives. The legally correct interpretation of section 4(2) of the Licensing Act 2003 is a matter for the court. “Public safety” is not “public health”, but the statutory objectives are capable of overlapping. They are not restricted to alcohol-related matters. Whether particular circumstances engage an objective may involve evaluative judgment. The Judge was entitled to regard the pandemic restrictions and the appellant’s conduct as relevant to public safety and crime prevention.
3. Unprosecuted conduct. The crime prevention objective permits a broader assessment than the identification of criminal convictions. Where a licence holder identifies a defence which, if established, would mean that no offence had been committed, the licensing appeal court should in principle address it, unless the result would not materially change. A collateral challenge may be based on incompatibility of subordinate legislation with a Convention right under the Human Rights Act 1998.
4. Property rights. The restrictions did not extinguish the appellant’s legal rights or deprive it of all meaningful use of its property. They were measures controlling use. The applicable question was whether a fair balance was struck, and the proposed defence could not succeed.
5. CCTV. “Serious crime” bears the meaning supplied by section 81(2) and (3) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. In the licence condition, serious crime qualified accelerated production. It did not permit routine withholding of CCTV. Production was required within a reasonable time, ordinarily 24 hours.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal by way of case stated was dismissed and the stated questions were answered yes.
• Teesside Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Hood dismissed the appeal against revocation of the premises licence on 16 March 2022.
• Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council Statutory Licensing Committee: premises licence revoked following a review hearing in July 2021.